Bush's New Plan- Get Rid of Welfare

It’s clear he’s pandering to the GOP ethic of selfishness.

Trump shrewdly has gained the lead by already pandering to that GOP ethic, in his case through immigration and terrorism.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Provide them jobs? The young, old, mentally/physically handicapped have excuses not to work, how about everyone else not in these categories? I don't see large liberal cities/areas such as Chicago doing so well with what they have in place.

There's no jobs to do. Most jobs are unskilled labor that pay a life of poverty, and there's not even enough of those to go around. People aren't working because productivity has reached a point where we simply don't need everyone to work.

This is a problem and true. Only to get worse with automation.

But there are solutions. One being people learn to do things with their hands like grow food and fix their own household furnishings. There is also the final frontier.

originally posted by: Aazadan

There's no jobs to do. Most jobs are unskilled labor that pay a life of poverty, and there's not even enough of those to go around. People aren't working because productivity has reached a point where we simply don't need everyone to work.

Why? You know if we brought, lets say, 100 million jobs from overseas back to America there would be more jobs. If we stimulated small businesses to grow there would be more jobs. The government doesn't make jobs, they need to make it easier for people to make jobs. If it cost Nike 1 buck more to make their snickers overseas than they would start manufacturing tomorrow right herein the states...hehe

Welfare would work if we had a sound money system.

Every time someone utilizes welfare benefits, more money is pulled out of someone's butt to pay the corporations for the goods they sell through SNAP and the like.

Those funds are not paid by taxpayers, they are created from thin air and every dime they pull a dime out of their asses it devalues the entire system and every dime in it.

If we had a sound money system, employers would be able to pay a fairer wage and not have to pay employees with short term paper which would remove a lot of people from needing help.

Never heard a corporation complaining about people on welfare, they love it because they benefit from it more than they did before, more than the recipients of it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: luthier

A basic income is good, but paying for it is another matter. I think that we're ultimately going to have to move to that model but it requires some significant tax increases and a willingness to elect competent people to collect/distribute that money. Right now we can't even do things like get tax increases to keep our bridges from imminent collapse so I don't think the political will exists for this.

I don't know if it needs a tax increase when computer programs can do the work of 10's of thousands of federal workers. Of course than you have those people needing jobs but half the cost of social programs is I'm administration.

originally posted by: abe froman

Mandatory birth control.

We have a nation of welfare addicts that breed like cockroaches on someone else's dime.

Stop the idiocracy.

I always wondered why a person who can't even take care of themselves decides a crap load of kids is the right direction for them...lol

a reply to: CB328

I guess with Jeb, desperate times calls for desperate measures. Now he's trying to cater to the radical far right. Too bad Trump has that group in his pocket.

It seems like this election has many of the GOP candidates following Trump's lead with ridiculous statements.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Aazadan

There's no jobs to do. Most jobs are unskilled labor that pay a life of poverty, and there's not even enough of those to go around. People aren't working because productivity has reached a point where we simply don't need everyone to work.

Why? You know if we brought, lets say, 100 million jobs from overseas back to America there would be more jobs. If we stimulated small businesses to grow there would be more jobs. The government doesn't make jobs, they need to make it easier for people to make jobs. If it cost Nike 1 buck more to make their snickers overseas than they would start manufacturing tomorrow right herein the states...hehe

That would be an inflation nightmare. They have been holding that at bay with cpi which can't exist without cheap labour.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: luthier
The local governments know local problems. I am even okay with socialism if its a very local level and non federal. Anything bigger just turns into a mess or worse.

If a state voted in socialism then GREAT! They voted what they wanted, that is how it should work, and I can chose to live there or not.

A state may even be too large for socialism in the US. Our politics is that corrupt.

originally posted by: dawnstar
I got a feeling that any state that did entirely cut the welfare many of the the businesses in that state would probably move to the more liberal states to avoid paying a living wage to the people. I think it would kind of put the conservatives in a bad spot. Either hold to you words and cut the programs, which really isn't good for the businesses in those states, or well, admit you've been lying to us this whole time.

Yeah, see CALIFORNIA. Liberalist state in the union, IMHO. Regardless of where the poor people came from, race, ethnicity etc. Their economy is busted....literally. Having each state responsible for it's poor won't solve anything because to a degree, most states are responsible for their own poor and it hasn't worked out so well. Not unless you had the same rules and prerequisites for all.

I mean look, every state has people with medical conditions but the states can't even have a standard policy that is equivalent to their next door neighbor, much less the rest of the US.

It would be kinda interesting to see which blue states close the purse strings on the poor and which red states don't.

originally posted by: luthier

That would be an inflation nightmare. They have been holding that at bay with cpi which can't exist without cheap labour.

So you are saying that those $150 Nike snickers cost them $135 to get them into your hands so they can reap 10% profit?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: luthier

That would be an inflation nightmare. They have been holding that at bay with cpi which can't exist without cheap labour.

So you are saying that those $150 Nike snickers cost them $135 to get them into your hands so they can reap 10% profit?

No but the shareholders aren't giving up the profit. What you are suggesting would severely dammage the whole system. Those 150 dolla Nike would cost 145 to make in the US.

Hey I am all for it the system needs to change and we have created this problem. But its not as simple as bringing jobs home. The stock market/retirements and the cost of product would be a problem.

a reply to: luthier

I really like your ideas.
I don't think welfare as we know it should exist.
If there is a guaranteed minimum income then everyone collecting should owe X number of hours work to the state. Provide day care (more work for people on welfare) so people can do work or job training.
Apprentice those with aptitude and find manual labor for those with no skills.
We need to start community gardens so fresh, healthy food is available to people of all incomes.
Most infrastructure projects require a great deal of manual labor, put people to work on those.
Collecting money for doing nothing is inherently wrong.
Only those truly disabled or too old should be exempted though even they can probably contribute in some fashion.

Bravo to you for providing valuable service to your community.

Government should be about empowering people, not creating dependents of them.

originally posted by: luthier

No but the shareholders aren't giving up the profit. What you are suggesting would severely dammage the whole system. Those 150 dolla Nike would cost 145 to make in the US.

Hey I am all for it the system needs to change and we have created this problem. But its not as simple as bringing jobs home. The stock market/retirements and the cost of product would be a problem.

I think those sneakers that cost them 15 bucks would then cost them 50 bucks and so they would come back home to cost them 30 bucks...hehe Their stock value would take a hit, as would most companies in the same boat, but then one needs to ask is their stocks over priced due to their practices to use the lowest labor cost in the world? Maybe they need to take a hit.

But as you say that is not a one fix here. Reduction in population over the next 100 years is not a bad thing either. If the US had only 200 million people that would be 130 million less in need of a job or support. We also need to get away from the consumer mentality and get back to what is it that we need to live on and not what do we want. I see no matter what we do subsistence living for many in the future but there are much better ways to do it more efficiently and cheaper than how we do it now.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Why? You know if we brought, lets say, 100 million jobs from overseas back to America there would be more jobs. If we stimulated small businesses to grow there would be more jobs. The government doesn't make jobs, they need to make it easier for people to make jobs. If it cost Nike 1 buck more to make their snickers overseas than they would start manufacturing tomorrow right herein the states...hehe

I'm going to respond by paraphrasing another member from a recent post. It may have even been you (I get you mixed up with a couple others at times). We can have two of the three: Jobs, good wages, and free markets.

If we practice protectionism and get rid of free markets we can have artificially high wages and jobs at home.
If we have good wages and free markets, not many jobs are going to be here.
If we have free trade and jobs, they need to be globally competitive and we won't have wages.

My choice would be wages (and regulations) plus good wages. It means high unemployment, but it also means a good standard of living for many people with only say 30-40% of the population being dependent. In my opinion if we sacrifice wages everyone will be dependent, and if we sacrifice free markets we lose too much global leverage in negotiations.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: luthier

No but the shareholders aren't giving up the profit. What you are suggesting would severely dammage the whole system. Those 150 dolla Nike would cost 145 to make in the US.

Hey I am all for it the system needs to change and we have created this problem. But its not as simple as bringing jobs home. The stock market/retirements and the cost of product would be a problem.

I think those sneakers that cost them 15 bucks would then cost them 50 bucks and so they would come back home to cost them 30 bucks...hehe Their stock value would take a hit, as would most companies in the same boat, but then one needs to ask is their stocks over priced due to their practices to use the lowest labor cost in the world? Maybe they need to take a hit.

But as you say that is not a one fix here. Reduction in population over the next 100 years is not a bad thing either. If the US had only 200 million people that would be 130 million less in need of a job or support. We also need to get away from the consumer mentality and get back to what is it that we need to live on and not what do we want. I see no matter what we do subsistence living for many in the future but there are much better ways to do it more efficiently and cheaper than how we do it now.

Can't argue with your philosophy I agree. I just think the market turmoil and fragile population would be enough to cause a big problem. Unless it's done methodically which we can count out if its done by a Republican or Democrat.

originally posted by: luthier
I don't know if it needs a tax increase when computer programs can do the work of 10's of thousands of federal workers. Of course than you have those people needing jobs but half the cost of social programs is I'm administration.

I'm a fan of a basic income like Norway has. I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to but lets say we have a basic income of $15,000/year (about what Norways is worth). It would require 4,755,000,000,000 or 4.75 trillion per year to pay for that which would mean more than doubling our current federal tax rate. On the other hand I think that long term it would be a fantastic economic boost because we could eliminate the minimum wage and every job would succeed or fail based largely in part on if the wage offered was attractive enough, and it would enable people to easily take time off work and focus on education, new skills, and so on.

originally posted by: Aazadan
My choice would be wages (and regulations) plus good wages. It means high unemployment, but it also means a good standard of living for many people with only say 30-40% of the population being dependent. In my opinion if we sacrifice wages everyone will be dependent, and if we sacrifice free markets we lose too much global leverage in negotiations.

The problem is many want "good wages" for crap jobs. Good jobs equal good wages period. It seems like people are fine with low end jobs as long as those jobs pay well beyond their worth. We will see in the restaurant business this year a lot more of them going to a no server model to reduce employees. You will have like one person managing a string of Kiosk to order from and then you pick up your food when it is done. So you have 1 ordering person a couple of table cleaners and cooking staff that you pay more but 1/2 the normal number of employees. The wages will still not be good at 13.00 or so per hour.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
I don't know if it needs a tax increase when computer programs can do the work of 10's of thousands of federal workers. Of course than you have those people needing jobs but half the cost of social programs is I'm administration.

I'm a fan of a basic income like Norway has. I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to but lets say we have a basic income of $15,000/year (about what Norways is worth). It would require 4,755,000,000,000 or 4.75 trillion per year to pay for that which would mean more than doubling our current federal tax rate. On the other hand I think that long term it would be a fantastic economic boost because we could eliminate the minimum wage and every job would succeed or fail based largely in part on if the wage offered was attractive enough, and it would enable people to easily take time off work and focus on education, new skills, and so on.

You can't add 15k to children. It's for adults so first off half your number. There are 158 million adults.

What is the number we spend on all social programs. SS and medacare alone are 1 trillion.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So you are saying that those $150 Nike snickers cost them $135 to get them into your hands so they can reap 10% profit?

I'm not sure if this is what the poster was referring to but CPI is literally broken. Reagan broke it in order to fix the inflation under Carter, we changed how it was calculated in order to eliminate the inflation rate on paper but it never really went away. Pre 1982 or so we calculated it by tracking the change in the cost of goods per year but now we track the change in cost in household spending.

The simplified example I use is this example. You buy $3 sandwiches for $2 each so $6 spent. The following year you can only buy 2 sandwiches at $3 each so again $6. Under the old system this is seen as 50% inflation because the item went from $2 to $3 but under our current system it's marked at 0% inflation because $6 were spent in both years.